Sorry. I knew it was Eric. My mistake. But this time it really is Nick I'm responding to.
*nst --> I thought that Russ's position was that one cannot IN PRINCIPLE know what is truly in another's mind **Russ*: No. I don't believe that. In fact, I expect that with advanced enough technology we will be able to experience what another experiences. *nst --> Just to re-iterate that our argument is not about the existence of mental life; it is about what we actually are talking about when we talk about mental life. I think we are talking about third person things, or things that a third person could in principle "see". * *Russ*: I'm not sure what that means. I've been talking about *the existence * of mental life. If you aren't denying the existence of mental life, I have no idea why we had this conversation. I thought I was defending its existence against your arguments opposing it.. I have not been talking about third person things. Mental life is by definition first person. And when I said above that I expect that we will be able to experience what another experiences, I mean that by hooking us up appropriately, my first person experience will be very much the same as yours. I think we really have exhausted this conversation. Or probably more accurately, it has exhausted us -- or at least me. -- Russ On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > Russ, > > Actually, I didnt write what you are countering, here, but I will defend > it anyway. > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([email protected]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Russ Abbott <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 6/21/2009 4:18:52 PM > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Behaviorist Federal Judge > > See below. > > -- Russ Abbott > _____________________________________________ > Professor, Computer Science > California State University, Los Angeles > Cell phone: 310-621-3805 > o Check out my blog at http://bluecatblog.wordpress.com/ > > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> it cannot be the case, pragmatically speaking, that we let other people >> live because they have an inner life. We all know this cannot be true (Russ >> included), because one of the axiomatic assumptions for these conversations >> is that you cannot directly know someone else's mental life. If you cannot >> know whether or not someone has a mental life, you can't decide whether or >> not you can kill them based on their having a mental life. Is there any way >> to make that more obvious?!? > > > I see four problem. > > 1. The argument mixes epistemology with ontology. It's one thing to > discuss what we can and cannot know -- which tends to change with > technology > and our level of sophistication. It's another to discuss what is. Unless > you > want to take the position that one cannot talk about what is and can only > talk about what can be known, these two should be kept separate. *nst > -->I thought that Russ's position was that one cannot IN PRINCIPLE know > what is truly in another's mind* > > No. I don't believe that. In fact, I suspect that with advanced enough technology we will be able to experience what another experiences. > > 1. ** > > > > 1. An argument can be made that nothing can really be known. After all, > what is it to know something? No matter what one does, one can never be > sure. *nst --> Yes, but such sweeping arguments are without force; > since they apply to all knowledge, they dont give one any information about > any special features of consciousness, or anything else for that matter. > More over, they self distruct, since they apply to themselves. * > 2. To know something implies a knower, which relies on a mental life. *nst > --> Just to re-iterate that our argument is not about the existence of > mental life; it is about what we actually are talking about when we talk > about mental life. I think we are talking about third person things, or > things that a third person could in principle "see". * > 3. Simply making the argument and expecting someone to understand it > makes no sense unless one assumes a mental life in the speaker and the > listener. Without that, all we have are photons generated by a CRT or bits > stored in a computer, etc. *nst --> Again, I disagree. What is > "mental" adding, here? Without LIFE, all we have are photons etc. * > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
